The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. No consensus to merge. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1920s establishments in Sikkim to Category:1920s establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1940s establishments in Sikkim to Category:1940s establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1950s establishments in Sikkim to Category:1950s establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1942 establishments in Sikkim to Category:1942 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1952 establishments in Sikkim to Category:1952 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:2004 establishments in Sikkim to Category:2004 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:2010 establishments in Sikkim to Category:2010 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Sikkim by year to Category:Establishments in India by year
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Sikkim by decade to Category:Establishments in India by decade
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Sikkim to Category:Establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1786 establishments in Bihar to Category:1786 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1940 establishments in Bihar to Category:1940 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1961 establishments in Bihar to Category:1961 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1966 establishments in Bihar to Category:1966 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1970 establishments in Bihar to Category:1970 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1971 establishments in Bihar to Category:1971 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1972 establishments in Bihar to Category:1972 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1977 establishments in Bihar to Category:1977 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1965 establishments in Nagaland to Category:1965 establishments in India

Nominator's rationale: Apart from these small categories, there is no hierarchy for establishments by state or territory within India. "Years in Sikkim" categories were already merged, see 2016 July 19. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: If not merged, the 2004 & 2010 Sikkim categories and the Bihar categories will require parents to be set up.
• Disclosure: As listed at the top of Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, there were 8 other small categories for Bihar with no parent hierarchy, which were set up by Accoloot (talk · contribs); I simply merged and redirected these to India. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial oppose. Sikkim became a state of India only 1975. Before that it was an independent state, and conventionally we do have establishment-by-year cats for independent states. So keep all Sikim caetgories up to 1975.

As the rest, see e.g. Category:1970s establishments in India: the by-year subcats average about 100 pages. See Category:2000s estabhlishments in India: the average size is closer to 200.

So I think we should probably keep the other categories too. They will be needed soon enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but dual merge the Sikkim categories (both pre and post 1975) also to Category:20th-century establishments in Sikkim or Category:21st-century establishments in Sikkim and merge pre-1975 Sikkim categories to years in Asia instead of years in India. Even while India in total grows, it is not meaningful to keep 1-page categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as nom -- India is such an enormous country that it is wholly appropriate to have categories split by state. The India categories are already quite large. I would thus prefer an additional merge target of Category:1970s establishments in Bihar, etc. This also avoids the difficulty that Sikkim was a princely state under the Raj, then an Indian protectorate under Indian Suzerainty until 1975 and only then an Indian state. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Imho this comment is actually supporting the nomination, but additionally proposes creating a new tree to serve as a second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per User:BrownHairedGirl. Sikkim until 1975 is valid cat, other cats can be nominated separately.GreyShark (dibra) 15:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep No consensus to rename. bibliomaniac15 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Market research companies by country to Category:Marketing research companies by country

Nominator's rationale: There is an article for Market research and one for Marketing research. Just as Phys Ed is not Physics, so the two are not alike. All of this was once correct, until the TOP Level was renamed. This CFR seeks to restore the correct grouping. (USA,Canda,UK,etc are all named Marketing) C2C Pi314m (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, this is not the top level of the naming convention, the top level is Category:Market research, and under it Category:Market research organizations. It would make more sense to rename the country subcats to Market research. The two terms are often being used interchangeably anyway. Even if you insist there is a difference between the two terms, hardly any of these companies purposefully stays away from either market research or marketing research. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. A small market research company doesn't take assignments for what is clearly marketing research. Likewise, an NBC or Coke would not hire a small marketing research company to do basic market research, but they would hire a EuroMonitor-sized outfit; the latter does both. Pi314m (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Category:Market research companies of Canada Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name.

Category:Market research companies of Australia? Category was moved to Marketing research companies of Australia in 2009.

Houston, we have a problem, and kidnapping the old top-level Marketing (companies by country) is not the solution. Pi314m (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean to propose moving the Australian subcategory back? Fine with me, though it requires a different nomination, and it does not influence my oppose in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Research in Australia's description says "an Australian market researching company;" fellow Aussie IRIS Research has "IRIS Research conducts both market and social research". They were "abducted" in 2009 from Market to Marketing

(This is the reverse direction of companies by country). I accept that the 2009 action can't be fixed here, but do we leave two wrongs in place, or at least fix the proposed restore (by country was correct before) Pi314m (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is a subcat scheme for Category:Market research companies, article Market research, categories Category:Market research, Category:Market research organizations. It is the subcats that should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah. (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah Seng Huat to Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah
• Propose merging Category:Taxa named by Evan S. H. Quah to Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah

Nominator's rationale: These categories both refer to the same individual, Evan Quah of Universiti Sains Malaysia [1] (see Malaysian names#Chinese names for an explanation of why the surname is in the middle in "Evan Quah Seng Huat"). Either they should both be merged to a new Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah, or one of them should be merged to the other. If an article were ever created about him, it would probably be at Evan Quah rather than his full name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, c.f. Evan Quah’s banded bent-toed gecko. Thanks, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both per nominator. Clear duplicates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both somehow. Unless someone can suggest something better, I would go along with nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both Duplicate categories with identical scopes. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 21:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Indonesian landlords to Category:Indonesian landlords and Category:Landheeren

Nominator's rationale: From a casual glance, most of the articles in 'Indonesian landlords' are Landheeren of the pre-revolutionary period. I assumed the category referred solely to Landheeren, but I was informed that we ought to leave the category as broad as possible to include modern-day property tycoons or agricultural conglomerates. I believe, however, that a sub-category 'Landheeren' for under 'Indonesian landlords' might also be appropriate. Please let me know what you think.+Marie+Leung+ (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC) +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved the main article 'particuliere landerij', which I created, to 'particuliere landerijen' in the plural. I feel that i should have created the article in the plural in the first instance. Most of the academic literature I've looked at refer to these domains in the plural. Using the plural form aslo harmonises with the Vorstenlanden article, which is also in the plural and of comparabla legal status.+Marie+Leung+ (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose, the articles in the category use the term "landlord" instead of "landheer" so the latter may well be a non-defining characteristic. Note that "landheer" simply means "landlord", except here it also appears to have a specific legal meaning. A rename (and purge) to Category:Landlords in the Dutch Indies seems more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle Buidhe I realise that in Dutch, 'landheer' simply means landlord. In the Dutch East Indies, though, a Landheer was the owner of a particuliere landerij, which had a much narrower legal meaning than large landownership. There were other large landlords in the Dutch East Indies who were not Landheeren; and these could go under the broader category 'Indonesian landlords'. There's a certain parallel to a Patroon in Dutch New Amsterdam, the colonial American meaning of which differed from its Dutch equivalent. +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the split, but the second category should be named "Category:Landlords in the Dutch Indies" per Marco. (t · c) buidhe 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle Buidhe Thanks, but a Landheer in the Dutch East Indies was legally the owner of a particuliere landerij, which gave the role a specific legal jurisdiction and certain governmental powers over the land that other large landlords didn't have. There were landlords in the Dutch East Indies who were not Landheeren, who could go under 'Indonesian landlords' if we retain that as a broader category. +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize the narrower legal meaning of Landheer, but as the articles in the category mostly do not use the term Landheer I can only suspect that Landheer is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle 2 of the articles in 'Indonesian landlords' specifically use the term 'Landheer', while 2 others (from the Khouw family) use 'particuliere landen', which means that the owner was a Landheer. I'm pretty sure the other 2 Khouws were also Landheeren. More importantly, 'Indonesian landlords' as a category includes mostly ethic Chinese Landheeren. There are many Wikipedia articles of important European Landheeren not yet categorised as such, including former Governors-General of the Dutch East Indies and many other persnalities. For instance, the Dutch East Indies writers Louis Couperus and E. du Perron came from this landowning class: Couperus's father was a Landheer and could be included in our new sub-category. 'Landheeren' could be a useful sub-category to 'Indonesian landlords'. +Marie+Leung+ (talk)

• Comment -- This is the English WP, so that the appropriate name is Category:Landlords in the Dutch Indies. It would be thoroughly appropriate to limit this to Landheeren owning a particuliere landerij (and purge anything else to another category), but the system is obscure to typical English readers, so that the detail of the limited scope would be better explained in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron I don't think it'd be appropriate to limit a hypothetical 'category for 'Landlords in the Dutch East Indies' to Landheeren. It would imply that there weren't other kinds of landlords in the Indies, which would be incorrect: there were plantation owners, landholding companies, feudal rulers and appanage leaseholders in the Vorstenlanden who could quality as 'Landlords in the Dutch East Indies' but were not Landheeren as such. It'd be as inaccurate as restricting a hypothetical 'Landlords in colonial America' to Patroons+Marie+Leung+ (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The ultimate question is whether the concept of Landheeren is being distinguished from landlords in English-language sources - and if so, what English terminology is being used. As long as that is not clear, anything else than landlords will not work. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle the academic literature in English, Dutch and Indonesian definitely recognises the difference between a Landheer as the owner of a particuliere land and other kinds of landlords. The term 'landlord' would often be used, but only after qualifying in the beginning that it is used to refer to a Landheer. But, if you insist, I'm happy to leave this matter lie until perhaps we have more articles on colonial Indonesian Landheeren and other kinds of landowners. +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I put my oar in above on a subject of which I know little. Since this is a colonial era category, it should not be "Indonesian", but I would accept Category:Landheeren in Dutch East Indies. If there are other kinds of landlord, identified in purging the category, suitable categories can be provided for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not delete, and rename somehow. Beyond that, preferences are evenly divided; some editors prefer one hierarchy to two, which would use "programming", but others prefer "shows" and/or "episodes". In this situation it is up to the closer to make a choice, and consistency with other categories will carry weight. I am influenced by the siblings Category:Television shows by writer and Category:Television episodes by writer and therefore close as "option E" = option A + B, i.e. both Category:Television shows by director and Category:Television episodes by director, and rename the sub-cats according to their contents. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list implemented. I realise that Category:Television episodes directed by Delbert Mann could have been split, but both would be small, so I have used "episodes". Ping me if you think I got any of the others wrong. I note that the "shows" categories contain mainly TV specials, plays and films, and that some "episodes" categories contain articles on seasons. I did not notice any articles here on "series". These observations and your own may highlight various ways in which the shows/episodes split is not entirely satisfactory, so this close is no bar to further discussions.

To save admin I will also rename these new creations by Trivialist per C2C as part of this close:

• Category:Television programs directed by Vincent McEveety to Category:Television episodes directed by Vincent McEveety
• Category:Television programs directed by Jason Woliner to Category:Television episodes directed by Jason Woliner

– Fayenatic London 09:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: rename all to use "shows"

• Category:Television programs by director to Category:Television shows by director

Option B: rename all to use "episodes"

• Category:Television programs by director to Category:Television episodes by director

Option C: rename all to use "programming"

• Category:Television programs by director to Category:Television programming by director

Option D: delete all

• Category:Television programs by director

Nominator's rationale: this was originally a speedy nomination to rename these categories to use "shows" instead of "programs", per convention established at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s. That's Option A.

"Shows" was opposed by @Gonnym, who helpfully pointed out that most of the content is articles on individual episodes of TV series, so that "episodes" would be a better title. That's Option B.

That prompted me to think that it would be better still to use a title which includes all types of TV programming: whole series, individual episodes, and one-off shows. The attribute that we are capturing here is the work of a given director, not the precise format ... so why restrict the scope to any one type of content? That's Option C, and my preference.

A further complication is added by CFD 2011 March 19, which deleted (along with its 22 subcats) Category:Television episodes by director. There was another, bigger set of subcats deleted at CFD 2011 March 11 The set of nominated categories, however they are named, is clearly a re-creation of that set. So this discussion needs to consider the possibility of deleting this whole set. That's Option D.

However, consensus can change, and I think that the 2011 decisions were mistaken. The CFD 2011 March 11 deletion was supported by only two editors, so it was a v wweak consensus ... and the editor who argued for deletion, @Lafe Smith, was blocked 10 days later as a sockpuppet (see their block log).

A more cogent case for deletion was at the CFD 2011 March 19, by @Bearcat, who swung that discussion towards delete by an argument which I summarised in my !vote to delete as being "that the auteur theory does not apply to directors of episodes of television series".

I supported that rationale then, but 9 years later I feel more cautious, for two reasons:

1. The auteur theory is contested, but far from universally rejected. In hindsight, I think that the 2011 analysis was black-and-white thinking. Even if we reject the auteur theory wrt TV productions, and take the view that TV productions are a collaborative process, that logically leads to a view that the creative process behind a TV production multiple WP:DEFINING attributes, and that the director may be one such attribute. By deleting the director categories, we impede readers who want to explore the influence of the director. So unless we take the view that the director is always a trivial element of the process, we should keep the categories and let readers make up their own mind.
2. The re-creations have had some durability, which suggests that the enthusiasm for deletion at the 2011 CFDs may not be widely shared. The current categories were mostly created in late 2018 (@Trivialist created[2] Category:Television programs by director in Sept 2018, and my sampling shows that Trivialist created many of the subcats in the following months) This doesn't seem to be type of category which editors rush to delete.

So my preference this time is to keep them, and rename to "programming" per Option C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Television programs by director[edit]

• Support a combination of option A and option B. I do believe that the auteur theory is not relevant for directors of TV programs and episodes, where the writer (or more precisely, the showrunner) is the driving force being the media. However, I don't think that makes the categorization invalid. Knowing what episodes the Russo brothers directed is something that is entirely plausible someone would like to find out, seeing as how they've directed two of the biggest films ever ("A Fistful of Paintballs" is one of the episodes, and is one of the reasons they've been chosen by Marvel to direct Captain America). The reason I say combination, is that it's entirely possible for someone to direct a one-off program or a TV film (are TV films categorized here as well?) which means that both categories are needed. The episode can be a child of this or link to it from a "See also" hatnote. However, if option C comes out as the consensus, I'm fine with that (my preference being A&B) as I'm opposed to D.--Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym, Option C ("television programming") is an inclusive terms which covers episodes, series, one-off shows, and TV films. I agree that the categories should include all types ... so why not use the common, inclusive term? How would it help anyone to have some of these categories called "shows" and some called "episodes", which is both inconsistent and potentially unstable as contents change?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking at Category:Television episodes by writer and Category:Television programs by writer as how I see A&B, which I see as more consistent than creating a new structure only for directors (see also Category:Television programs by source and Category:Television episodes by source; Category:Television programs by topic and Category:Television episodes by topic and others). --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gonnym, if we go down that route, then we will end up with cases of two of these categories per director: Category:Television episodes directed by Sean Citizen and Category:Television shows directed by Sean Citizen, with someone needing to create see-also links between them. I can't see how that duplication helps.
        It would make more sense to merge Category:Television episodes by writer+subcats with Category:Television programs by writer+subcats than to replicate that split in another tree ... but the structures don't intersect, so there is no need pressing to synchronise them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you mean. I'll think about it while I wait for more input from others. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option B I have found it much easier to locate the directors of specific episodes from a single series, rather than finding lists of every director involved in said series. It is not that rare for every episode to have a different director. I typically categorize television films in "films directed by" categories. Other than release format, there is not much of a difference from a feature film. "one-off shows" are often categorized as Category:Television specials and have their own category tree. Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• None of these unless US is added to the category names. In UK, computers have "programs"; "TV shows programmes". I do not care which option is selected, provided that the categories are explicitly limited to American cases. In any event do we need this tree at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron, as noted in the nomination, the use of "shows" globally was agreed at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s, per MOS:COMMONALITY. Please don't try to turn this discussion into a re-run of that one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A - more inclusive term, 'shows' has just been agreed upon after much argy-bargy, 'programming' was accepted around 2010 and then rejected a few years later, people can create an episodes subcat if they are bored. ('Programming' was agreed via eg 2013_May_13#TV_programming_by_language and then undone via eg 2017_February_14#Category:Television_programming_by_language.) Oculi (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi, Option A (shows) is better than programs, because it fits the new convention. But the contents here are a mix of shows and episodes ... so shouldn't we have a title which includes both? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C covers both whole shows and episodes, so seems the least cumbersome. BrownHairedGirl: Would any consensus achieved here apply to requests suchlike Special:Diff/970488654? In which case I should pause that project... –xeno^talk 16:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Equal support for Option F: Television content by director / Television content directed by.... And if that's good, apply it to the writers. –xeno^talk 16:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Xeno: Special:Diff/970488654 seems justified by the existing convention of Category:Television shows by writer ... but it seems to me that if there is consensus here to follow option C, then Category:Television shows by writer should be renamed to suit.
    However, I don't like letting the best be the enemy of the good ... so I suggest go ahead with Special:Diff/970488654 etc, without prejudice to a further nomination to rename the whole set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the guidance. Given the opinions here, I'm wondering if a (somewhat cumbersome) option E should be considered: having categories for both whole shows and individual episodes? If not (and if "C" doesn't carry), I think that "shows" is preferable to "episodes" for a catch-all, since you could say that one episode is a "show" (Asking someone "Do you want to watch a TV show?" usually means just an episode or two, not the whole volume), whereas you wouldn't call the entire show "an episode". –xeno^talk 12:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While continuing that clean up, I've just noticed that we have Category:Television shows by writer and Category:Television episodes by writer, so there is precedent for this dual categorization scheme. –xeno^talk 12:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) @Xeno: I reckoned that splitting into separate "episodes and "shows" categories was going to create a lot of new categories to little benefit.
        However, since option C might not carry, I agree that an option E is worth considering.
        I have to say that I am disappointed by this discussion: you and Gonnym are the only ones to consider the fact that there are both shows and episodes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: I suppose one benefit would be those who want to watch entire TV shows written by a single person/writing group would have a category to look in. I'm going to continue the cleanup effort of TV screenplays that got categorized as film, which should give me a better view of the landscape. Here is the petscan link (thanks x201!) if you want to help (maybe work from the end?). –xeno^talk 13:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Xeno: sorry, but I'm overloaded with other tasks. But good luck with the cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• BrownHairedGirl et al.- what about "Television content by director", episodes, shows, miniseries, television films, could all live under such (Option F). –xeno^talk 23:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xeno: "Television content by director" is fine as a title ... but we don't a Category:Television content to parent it it in.
    So what would its parent category be?
    The only suitable parent I see is Category:Television programming. So why not name it match that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clever! I still equally support that option. –xeno^talk 23:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either A or B. Television programming is different and refers to the scheduling of different programmes (see Broadcast programming). Grutness...wha? 04:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grutness: some of the content is episodes, and some is shows. Neither A nor B encompasses both.
    As to "Television programming", see Category:Television programming, which is the parent of Category:Television shows. If it's suitable as a parent for shows, I don't see why we can't use this term to include to include the different types of content by director. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If some of it's episodes and some of it's shows, surely it belongs in two separate categories? And Category:Television programming makes it clear why it's not suitable. It contains shows, yes, but it also contains a lot of other things that are more directly related to programming, such as scheduling, blocking, station idents and the like. Grutness...wha? 03:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C, agree with nominator that a split between series and episodes is not very useful when categorizing by director. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:William Didier-Pouget to Category:Paintings by William Didier-Pouget

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category which exists entirely to hold images of his paintings rather than articles about his paintings. "Gallery" categories are subcategorized as image categories rather than article categories, so I've shifted the parent category from Category:French landscape painters to Category:Images of paintings accordingly -- but there are no other articles to justify an eponymous category within articlespace, so the category should also be renamed in accordance with established practice for artist-related image categories (which is "Paintings by [Artist]", not just "[Artist]".) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Numenius (bird). (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Curlews to Category:Numenius (bird)

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator. Obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. bibliomaniac15 03:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Christianity in Al-Andalus to Category:Mozarabs
• Propose merging Category:Christians of Al-Andalus to Category:Mozarabic people

Nominator's rationale: merge, categories have identical scope, see Mozarabs. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Query -- I know little of this, but wonder if you are not begging a question here: Mozarabs appears to refer to an Arabic-speaking Christian people, whereas a lot of the people categorised appear to have Latin (or at least Romance) names, not Arabic ones. Was the Mozarabic rite the only form of Christian worship in Al Andalus? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mozarabs weren't necessarily Arabic-speaking, they were just living in Muslim-occupied area. The Mozarabic Rite was actually older than the Muslim period, it emerged in the Visigothic period. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The term Mozarab is culturally loaded. It is a label that was introduced and employed pejoratively by Catholic bishops of the northern Christian kingdoms of Iberia against Arab-speaking Christians to designate them as collaborators or sympathizers (with Muslims). The term has been challenged by recent scholars, and many are refraining from using the word to describe Christians of al-Andalus. As far as the category is concerned, the use of "Christians of ..." is more readable than an obscure term like Mozarabs. Also, more consistent with naming used for other categories under parent Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Al-Andalus: thanks for your comment, does it imply that you support a reverse merge? That would also be fine provided that redirects are left. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per @Al-Andalusi: explanation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per @Al-Andalusi:. VR _talk 01:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename per option B to Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts, with permission to create Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts if that looks useful. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Old Latin New Testament manuscripts to Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: rename anyway, because the current category name is confusing, the manuscripts are not in written in Old Latin but in Late Latin. Option A Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts, per WP:COMMONNAME, aligning with how it is being referred to in the articles, and similar to Category:Greek New Testament manuscripts and Category:Coptic New Testament manuscripts; option B Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts as a scientific term which is not used in the articles in this category. I prefer option A, while User:Veverve prefers option B, per speedy discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why would you want to rename it to "Latin New Testament manuscripts" since the category is not about all manuscripts containing the New Testament in Latin, but only about the New Testament manusripts containing a Vetus Latina text? Therefore I choose Option B. Veverve (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The underlying idea is to redefine the scope of the category accordingly, i.e. to categorize by language, just like with Greek and Coptic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• there is already a Category:Vetus Latina manuscripts. If you want you can make a new category of Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts wich will contain Category:Vetus Latina manuscripts and Category:Vulgate manuscripts; with Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts inside Category:Vetus Latina manuscripts. It is very important do distinguish between the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina text, as, among other differences, the Vulgate is a much later text and the Vetus Latina language is distinguished because of its amateurish style due to the great number of Greek (Septuagint) calques it uses. Veverve (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Vulgate manuscripts exists as a separate category anyway, there is no mixing up with Vulgate in either of the two rename variants. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Merge "Old Latin" or "vetus Latina" refers to MS from a tradition preceding the Vulgate (whose name derives from vulga - common. My view is that the Old and vetus categories should be merged, preferably to "vetus Latina". The result of the merge and vulgate MSS should be subcats of Latin NT MSS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Presuming it is meant to be merged to Category:Vetus Latina manuscripts, then this is quite a different direction of the discussion, because it would imply we would no longer specifically distinguish New Testament manuscripts. While I am not necessarily against that it would create an inconsistency, because we do have specific New Testament manuscripts subcategories in other languages categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B Regarding the common argument, I think that most people would have the Vulgate in mind so option A cannot be used. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: for clarification, the Vulgate would become a subcategory in option A. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What I was rather clumsily trying to say is that the Vulgate, which is both common and WP:Common, is not a good reason because it is less precise in this case. For the same reason, option A cannot be used because it is less precise in this case. I prefer the precision of option B. Perhaps Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts could then be a child of a newly created Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:School bands. (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:High school marching bands by country to Category:High school marching bands

• Propose merging Category:High school marching bands by country to Category:School bands
• Propose merging Category:High school marching bands to Category:School bands

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Category:High school marching bands from the United States. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Moreover it could even be merged to Category:School bands since Category:High school marching bands also contains only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, @Marcocapelle. Nomination amended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger to Category:School bands. School marching bands are peculiarly American phenomenon - I doubt that there are that many outside the United States. Grutness...wha? 16:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revised nom -- obvious, at least until we get cases from other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Military aides by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Category:Military aides to the president, which is already adequately categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Military aides to the president to Category:Military aides to the President of the United States

Nominator's rationale: parent categories and contents make it clear that the scope of this categories is aides to the POTUS, not just aides to any president. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.★Trekker (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously too generic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest as an alternative for brevity Category:Military aides to the US President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original: consistent with Category:Assistants to the President of the United States (although there's not much consistency in the tree, so my preference for this over the alternative proposal is weak. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sounds fine to me. and I created this category. good point, nom!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.